Knowledge (XXG):Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 10

750:

category 'Welsh-speaking people' and its replacement with the new container category 'Welsh-speaking people' this debate would not exist. As I have stated elsewhere, whilst some may argue that whichever language one speaks is irrelevant, this viewpoint is characteristic of that of an individual with a limited understanding of minority languages, and a lack of empathy with minority cultures and ethnic groups. Again, whilst the fact that a notable person can speak English may not be necessarily of interest - mainly due to the fact that English is the third most widely-spoken language in the world - by contrast, when a notable person who happens also to speak Welsh is not acknowledged as a Welsh-speaker, then that missing a very important point regarding the identity of that individual, simply because Welsh is much less prevalent than English, or Spanish, for example. Just as the existing category 'Black British people' is of interest, and is important, equally important is the need to re-establish the 'Welsh-speaking people' category, whereas the possible establishment of a category entitled 'English-speaking people', for example, would by contrast, not be called for, and with good reason. It is the scarcity of a given minority population such as Welsh-speaking people that makes it worthy of inclusion.

1353:. The subcategorization of the original category 'Welsh-speaking people' has created a significant problem. Due to its creation, several individuals can now be placed in several subcategories to the point of ridiculousness. For example, it is theoretically possible to place an individual into Welsh-speaking actors, Welsh-speaking singers, Welsh-language poets, Welsh-language television presenters and Welsh-speaking writers (as well as others). Previously, the use of 'Welsh-speaking people' alone would have avoided this kind of issue, and it would at the same time prevent the need for the current argument about whether or not to include 'Welsh-speaking sportspeople'. To solve this issue, I call for the reinstatement of the 'Welsh-speaking people' category. Until then, we should keep 'Category:Welsh-speaking sportspeople' 966:: The ethnicity of a person is (IMO) more defining than their native language and is definately more defining than any second language(s) (or other skills) the person has. A person only has one ethnicity, but could speak several languages and have dozens of other skills which could lead to lots of category tags on a page - especially because we often categorize on combinations of characteristics - the list of categories on a page could be longer than the text of the page. Another difference is that ethnicity is more permanent than skills - for example if a person was a notable sportsplayer in their 20s and spoke Welsh in their 40s (ignoring the issue of how fluent one needs to speak to be considered a Welsh speaker) then do they belong in the category? 1113:@User:RevelationDirect: It may be difficult for you to understand this, but please try to do so: as I've tried to point out above, whilst the ability to speak Spanish or English or French (for example) may not be noteworthy (due mostly to the fact that these languages are ubiquitous), the ability to speak an endangered language, such as Welsh, forms an integral part of an individual's identity and this should by no means ever be dismissed as 'trivial'. Whether they use the language in their professional life or not is irrelevant - it is part of who they are. 1313:-- As a matter of principle an article should not be both in parent and child categories. The containerisation of Welsh speakers should have not effect on the existence of occupational subcategories. There is also the possibility that we will get articles on people who fit none of the existing subcats, so that (pointlessly) they have to be given a special one-member subcat. A much better solution is to tag the category as a container, where articles should be diffused where possible into subcats. 2152:, except some vital country articles and categories of course. Also the nominator's argument about a flawed concept may be valid (the handling in articles is certainly not perfect), but lacking a better one we should stick to the current solution. Mixing 2 completely unrelated purposes in one category is not an improvement. "Uncategorized articles" are perfectly visible in a clearly named category, in fact they would be 531: 2942:. If we ignored real usage in both 1890, 1980 and 2015 and created the Ottoman descent category, we would still have the non-duplication issue. People in emigrant categories are diffused out of the parent descent category, so we do not pub them in the descent category, so Gibran does not go in the descent category since he is already in a diffusing sub--category. Gibran is also already in 2450:) shouldn't be under either of the categories it's currently in (lists and wikiproject) so (if kept) what parent(s) should it have? The existence of such an odd category impedes wikipedia maintenance because it prevents (or at least complicates) the use of category intersection to identify (other) pages that are in incorrect namespace-category combinations. 1154:@User:Marcocapelle How are you qualified to state that: "There is no identity struggle between English- and Welsh-speaking Welsh people"? While many people identify as being Welsh without having the ability to speak the Welsh language, this does not detract from the fact that the ability to speak the Welsh language forms an important 1664:

understand statistics, sportspeople who have a disabled child, church-going sportspeople, vegetarian sportspeople, teetotal sportspeople, sportspeople brought up in a one-parent family... - is Knowledge (XXG) guilty of marginalising the importance of all those characteristics as well? Regarding Black British - see my comments above.

874:. If there aren't any similar categories in other languages, then let's get them going! I would love a category on Catalan, Occitan, Gaelic etc speakers. Maybe not relevant for languages such as Mandarin, Hindi, Spanish, Portugese and other large-ish languages, though. Don't paint everything with red-white-and-blue paint! 755:

If it is undesirable, in your mind, to retain the category 'Welsh-speaking sportsmen', then the simple answer would be to delete the existing container category and revert back to the original 'Welsh-speaking people' category, which was a convenient and effective way to allow the acknowledgement of a

2937:

This is too fine an intersection. We cannot reasonably keep the category though. "Ottoman descent" is not an identifier even vaguely used in the real world. People identify as being of Turkish, Arabic, Jewish, Armenian and Greek descents, not Ottoman. Anyway, Khalil Gibran is already in the category

2129:

maintenance structure and this system is still in use (albeit rarely). I would be hesitant to delete such categories, just because they seem rarely used or not standard - unless we can make sure, that the proposed merge doesn't disrupt any project-internal maintenance tasks (on a sidenote, I have no

2907:

and see if something useful emerges from that. It's actually probably useful; someone from that era might well have though of themselves as Ottoman, and secondarily as Lebanese or whatever, and this might have been reflected in their political views, etc. It smacks a little of recentist OR to push

761:

Regarding the provision of evidence that a given person speaks Welsh, unfortunately that kind of evidence is not always freely available online. May I ask @DexDor if one should trouble oneself to search for evidence of the use of this vacant, senseless, simple, witless tongue outside of the realms

1401:

Having a minority language is an example of having a minority skill (e.g. being able to play the piano) that's of little (if any) relevance to ones ability to play rugby, football etc. There are dozens/hundreds of languages (Arabic, Urdu...) that are minority languages in the UK, but are spoken by

749:

is in any way "Fooish"? Whilst the language may appear vapid to you, your comment is disrespectful, derogatory and wholly unacceptable. May I remind @Carlossuarez46, @DexDor, and any other would-be supporters of this proposed deletion that were it not for the unnecessary deletion of the original

603:

that are questionable under this standard. I apologise that the previous close did not make this crystal clear; I had thought that it would have been understood by the context of the discussion as a whole. I'm assuming here that the creation of the subcategories was an honest misinterpretation and

2174:

We have a better solution - it's the solution that's used for 99.9% of the categories that have child categories in en wp. Whilst browsing the normal category tree I frequently come across articles that can be moved down to a lower level category (or are already also in the lower level category).

1024:

feel represent all that people need to know about the Welsh-language, namely categories directly related to poetry, academia, singing, television, music and literature. In other words, any other non arts-related discipline as far as the Welsh-language goes is irrelevant. In order to avoid such

1055:

This isn't an arts-vs-sports issue; if there was, for example, a Welsh-speaking-painters category that'd be an equally poor category. Can you not see the difference between someone who is notable for having written Welsh-language poetry (and hence their bio can be considered part of the topic of

669:

to appropriate subcategories, this subcategory is not appropriate. The language a sportsperson speaks (as opposed one the one a poet writes in or a singer sings in) is not a what makes the sportsperson notable. Moreover, there is no indication of how well a sportsperson must speak the language,

971:

Re "the ability to speak Welsh forms an important part of a Welsh-speaker's identity" - that may be true in some cases, but many other things (being brought up by a single parent, being married, having children, having an identical twin, ...) may also be important to a persons identity, but we

2195:

nomination. I can well understand that these categories were unhided at some point of time, because while hidden nobody would ever take the effort to put the articles in the right category. The same applies however (maybe to slightly lesser extent) to a dedicated "Uncategorized" category. The

1663:

If you really find SMcC's comments "highly offensive" that illustrates your lack of perspective on this. Do you think that because we don't have (for example), a category for sportspeople who are trained first aiders that marginalises the importance of first aid? How about sportspeople who

943:

is a good way to categorize sportspeople? Why is the fact that they are Black of any significance here? I'll tell you why: it is because it forms an important part of their identity. In the same way, whether you like it or not, the ability to speak Welsh forms an important part of a

235:-- Ancient is usually taken to end about 500 AD, though Byzantine late antique is arguably also ancient. About the next 1000 years is medieval. These are essentially periods in European history. I am concerned about leaving one item orphaned. Is the solution to have 920:, lawyers with a low golf handicap, musicians who can ride a motorbike...)? Why should, for example, a sportsperson who normally speaks English, but also learnt some Welsh as a child and has a Spanish home/spouse (so probably speaks a bit of that language) be placed in 442:

states "Categories that intersect heritage with occupation or other such categories should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right", which is a criteria that "Punjabi pornstars" does not meet.

833:. Quite a handy Category, and the world won't come to an end if kept as it is. Agree with Haul~cywiki. Of course the language doesn't make them notable and this is an attempt to cloud the issue. I certainly would like User:DexDor to explain his use of "<Fooish: --> 1577:(please see my comments above). Also, what makes a language 'trivial'? The Welsh language forms part of a Welsh-speaker's identity, and so is by no means a 'trivial' matter (please see my comments above regarding this); also please refer to: . I would argue that 1597:

is equivalent to 'Category:Pianists who can ride a bicycle' is highly offensive and suggests that you lack sufficient knowledge of this subject area to comment. Regarding your second point, there are sub-categories similar to those that you refer to, these are:

2251:

I would think that the point of these categories is that articles at CAT:Brazil are in need of further diffusion into the subcategories, and that while they appear at CAT:Brazil, the are also held in CAT:Uncategorized to indicate they need further diffusion. --

810:

of the article (if it can be referenced), but does not mean it is a good way to categorise sportspeople. If we categorised sportspeople by what unrelated (or very tenuously connected) skills they have then we could have categories for sportspeople who have a

924:, but not in the English/Spanish equivalents? Do you have any answer to the noms point about it being subjective (presumably you wouldn't count someone who's learnt a few words of Welsh from roadsigns etc so where would you draw the line)? Do you agree with 1092:

if it could be populated because there would be a language connection.) I'm open to a list article though, which would also encourage citations, but I think that list should start fresh rather than use the often unverified people in this category.

1510:

No, we don't have other such categories, and they'd be a magnet for more trivial-intersection subcats. The proper solution, which we already have, is the same as we do for all languages (when we have enough articles to categorize them this way):

911:

The purpose of categories to to group together similar articles (e.g. people notable for playing a particular sport) for the benefit of readers/editors - not to promote anything (e.g. particular languages). Do you have any reasons (apart from

1456:

as trivial intersection. I agree that there should be a category for Welsh-speaking people, but it does not need to be sub-categorized except where the language use is integral to why the person is notable (writer, TV/film personality, etc.)

944:

Welsh-speaker's identity, regardless of their profession. Evidence of the ability to speak Welsh should be referenced, and this may include links to Welsh-language webpages or newspaper articles and Welsh-language television programmes.

590:

and create subcategories by occupation. It was intended to reflect the consensus of that discussion, which was that the category should only contain subcategories for occupations in which speaking Welsh is integral to it, such as

2175:

I've been monitoring these categories (i.e. looking at them every week or so) for some time now and it appears that very few articles get placed in them and those articles that do get placed in them tend to stay there for years.

1131:

Who they are is Welsh. There is no identity struggle between English- and Welsh-speaking Welsh people and even if there were such a struggle then the categorization problem would easily be solved because it would just fill up

1088:'s description of trivial intersections. I'm sympathetic that language can be defining but I don't see what the language--often 2nd language--a sports person speaks has to do with their playing. (In contrast, I'd be open to 1713:-language occupations" category structure, so that the language use is tied to what people are notable for, not just to the fact of its existence as a skill they have. I don't need to personally establish categories like 2386:" which suggests that this category may well no longer be up to date and that what the category creator was trying to do can be done much better by looking at what-links-here for the template. Note: This category was 2091:

they ought to be "hidden" categories. However, if an article is wholly uncategorised, it should automatically get a tag as such; and if Australia-related it should be automatically getting Australia as a category.

1491:

In order to avoid sub-categorization to the point of ridiculousness (as discussed above), would you agree that a simple solution to this issue would be to reinstate the 'Welsh-speaking people' category without any

2130:

idea why we have both "Germany" and "German" categories - another mystery to research). It would be great, if we could get some of the creators of this specific maintenance structure to comment on the proposal.

670:

unlike the Welsh-language authors, tv presenters, and singers are well-defined to be those who write, present, or sing in Welsh. Moreover, I couldn't find any parallel categories and I can only dread a tree

2392:

The category is intended to contain articles on major sociological topics such that older pages such as Index_of_sociology_articles and Outline_of_sociology can be updated. After that, it will likely be

1331:

The point of this CFD (and the previous one) is that articles about sportspeople (etc) should not be categorised by what language skills they have. E.g. an article about a rugby player should not be in

690: 42: 928:? Do you think that adding a category tag to an article (especially a BLP) where the characteristic is not mentioned in the text of the article (and hence is unreferenced) is ever appropriate? 698: 140: 37: 1180:(i.e. hypothetically speaking) an important division in Welsh-being identity, then there would be much more Welsh-speaking activism. Which would then easily fill up the activists category. 1999: 694: 666: 583: 2225:, except you've done so in manner that is pointy and helps no one, much less readers. It's like spending $ 2,000 on a lawyer to help you use a tax dodge that saves you exactly $ 2,000. 856:. That this is the only such category in en wp is simply a statement of fact. Re "the world won't come to an end" - that's true, but irrelevant and would apply to every CFD discussion. 1995: 1991: 1978:

These categories place articles (not talk pages) under Wikiproject categories which is not how we normally categorize articles. Categorizing articles into "Uncategorized <topic: -->

2387: 1158:

of an individual's identity. Your second argument suggests that all Welsh-speaking people are also 'Welsh-language activists', which is clearly an incorrect assumption on your part.

1005: 1379:, which is by definition distinct from other more widely-spoken languages. In that context: why should an article about a sportsperson not be categorized according to the 1210:

of a Welsh-speaker's identity. 'Heb iaith, heb ddim'. It seems that an over-simplistic view has been taken on this matter without fully understanding its signiificance.

540: 2883:(as a sort of upmerge) to prevent the loss of data. I do not seem to have found the right target, but there must be such a category somewhere, unless he should be an 1622:

combined with the exclusion of certain sub-categories will only serve to marginalise the importance of the Welsh language in everyday life. I feel very strongly that

1421:. A good example of the importance and advantage of speaking the Welsh language with regard to playing sport has been exemplified by international rugby union player 916:) why you think this is a good way to categorize sportspeople? Would you support other "people by skills unrelated to their notability" categories (actors with a 708:

per nom. Note also that many/most of the articles in this category make no mention of what language(s) the sportsperson speaks. This is the only "<Fooish: -->

1531:(which is akin to "Category:Pianists who can ride a bicycle" or "Category:Canadian people who can waltz"), but encourage and preserve relevant categories like 2378:

This very unusual (if not unique in en wp) category places articles (not talk pages) under a Wikiproject category and places pages that are not lists under

2148:

Changing to oppose after some thinking. Frankly, misusing top-level country categories as maintenance categories is a bad idea. Those categories should be

2126: 1705:

I not sure why anyone's offended about anything, but whatever. Possession of a learned skill like a language fluency is not a defining characteristic. The

1760:

Welsh-speaking categories should be limited to ones where language matters, such as poets, singers, writers and translators. It does not matter in sport.

21: 104: 96: 17: 2943: 1990:

has been in the "uncategorized" category for 5 years and for the last 2 years has also been categorized. Examples of previous discussions:

2582: 2574: 2253: 2053: 1586: 1582: 1520: 1512: 963: 940: 185: 108: 92: 900: 276: 236: 2939: 2784: 1532: 1013: 3050: 2920: 2876: 2792: 2480: 2237: 1733: 1555: 1469: 312: 2565: 756:

notable person as possessing the notable ability to speak Welsh, while concomitantly eliminating the need to subcategorise further.

2858:

While I would not oppose a category about Americans of Ottoman descent, a subcategorization by occupation seems way too specific.

2904: 2880: 1687:'s response. First aid is not the same as a language, there are some key differences, of which I hope you will already be aware. 896: 463: 383: 2775: 1844: 1603: 1540: 1089: 632: 592: 2006: 1615: 1574: 1026: 671: 1964: 1904: 1892: 1599: 2218: 1916: 1880: 1856: 640: 1952: 1940: 1928: 1868: 207: 2959: 2929: 2895: 2867: 2850: 2828: 2766: 2699: 2678: 2657: 2641: 2618: 2556: 2489: 2456: 2437: 2420: 2401: 2330: 2261: 2246: 2205: 2181: 2165: 2139: 2101: 2079: 2061: 2034: 2015: 1836: 1769: 1742: 1696: 1670: 1654: 1594: 1590: 1578: 1564: 1528: 1524: 1501: 1478: 1434: 1408: 1392: 1362: 1342: 1322: 1285: 1267: 1255: 1237: 1219: 1189: 1167: 1145: 1122: 1102: 1062: 1046: 990: 953: 934: 883: 862: 843: 821: 793: 775: 732: 715: 683: 623: 609: 596: 586:

was not intended to be interpreted as meaning that we should take all of the articles that were previously categorised in

492: 475: 452: 391: 321: 288: 270: 258: 248: 223: 193: 176: 158: 116: 3011: 2221:

you have in fact made it categorized as a Brazil-related article, using exactly as much work as putting it, properly, in

1706: 203: 2979: 2747: 2719: 2537: 2509: 2311: 2283: 1817: 1789: 1718: 1714: 1611: 1607: 1133: 569: 546: 512: 369: 341: 130: 78: 3033: 3000: 1516: 2428:(as a hidden category) but it should be renamed to reflect its being such and to reflect ownership by a WP project. 439: 409: 1984:

Please do not delete ... This page is emptied and refilled on a regular basis, and should not be considered useless.

1623: 1619: 1536: 1030: 1017: 600: 587: 2695: 2637: 2416: 2348: 2075: 2030: 1228:

English-speaking Welsh people aren't any less people of Welsh identity than Welsh-speaking Welsh people, are they?

1098: 582:

delete. Those in favour of deletion have the stronger guideline-based arguments here. Incidentally, the closing of

1987: 1276:

It requires OR to determine whether individual Welsh-speaking sportspeople feel so strongly about speaking Welsh.

1008:

in such discussions. The subcatagorization of the category 'Welsh-speaking people' appears to be an example of a

804:

It is the scarcity of a given minority population such as Welsh-speaking people that makes it worthy of inclusion.

126: 2955: 2822: 1765: 802:

and doesn't answer the points in the deletion rationale (e.g. being subjective and unrelated to notability). Re "

488: 2884: 466:

which is already too small to require subdivision. In any case we don't use the term "pornstar" for categories.

400: 210:

and leave the one even older earthquake uncategorized in this tree (while I've just added the latter article to

679: 417: 211: 2339: 1618:

are not currently available. Can you establish these please? My central point is that sub-categorization of

2446:

Being hidden doesn't mean a category can ignore WP:SUBCAT etc - this category, which contains articles (e.g.

1004:, and this trivialises the importance of the subject. Users should remain impartial, and avoid giving their 2947: 2891: 2433: 2384:

A list (as of March 27, 2012) of all main-space articles into which Template:Sociology has been transcluded.

2356: 2257: 2097: 2057: 1932: 1333: 1318: 981: 921: 244: 189: 1085: 2201: 1281: 1233: 1185: 1141: 852:

In this context "Fooish" means "any language" - for info about use of the word "foo" as a placeholder see

839: 789: 728: 284: 239:. We are dealing with very remote periods when few areas of the world have any written history as such. 219: 172: 2975: 2917: 2743: 2715: 2691: 2633: 2533: 2505: 2477: 2412: 2307: 2279: 2234: 2071: 2026: 1813: 1785: 1730: 1692: 1650: 1552: 1497: 1466: 1430: 1388: 1358: 1263: 1215: 1163: 1118: 1094: 1042: 1025:

scenarios, it is necessary to reinstate the original category, especially when other categories such as

949: 917: 771: 565: 508: 448: 365: 337: 309: 103:

out of the scheme for now, but will leave it to the editors involved here to decide whether to nominate

74: 1688: 1646: 1493: 1426: 1384: 1354: 1259: 1211: 1159: 1114: 1038: 945: 767: 2951: 2819: 2674: 2447: 1761: 1000:

states that: "The ethnicity of a person is (IMO) more defining than their native language". This is

977: 939:@User:DexDor. Given your strong opinions, and apparent expertise in these matters, do you feel that 892: 879: 484: 266: 154: 100: 913: 2763: 2654: 2468:

or move to talk pages. I'd say "delete", since two years is long enough to do something with this.

2327: 2161: 2135: 1833: 812: 675: 606: 388: 113: 1982:

Most of these categories are currently empty, but have not been CSDed because they have a notice "

925: 2887: 2863: 2613: 2429: 2093: 2046: 2025:

I'm conceptually opposed to "uncategorized" categories outside of the administrative categories.

1848: 1350: 1314: 1246:

No, they are not any 'less Welsh'; however, the point that I am making is that amongst those who

471: 240: 2974:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

2714:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

2504:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

2278:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

2197: 1784:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

1633: 1629: 1376: 1277: 1229: 1199: 1181: 1137: 835: 785: 724: 507:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

336:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

280: 215: 168: 2742:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

2532:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

2306:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

1812:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

1573:

No, that's not actually correct - there are other such categories in existence, for example:

980:(in a sense, Phil Bennett is a subtopic of the topic of rugby union), but does not belong in 799: 564:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

364:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

73:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

2911: 2846: 2471: 2228: 1968: 1908: 1896: 1884: 1724: 1684: 1680: 1570: 1546: 1488: 1460: 444: 303: 167:, but I guess the category has to be split between 1st millennium BC and 1st millennium AD. 2122: 1056:

Welsh language) and someone who is notable for playing rugby and can speak a bit of Welsh?

691:

WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 15#Category:Scottish Gaelic-speaking people

2670: 2222: 1920: 1860: 1009: 888: 875: 262: 150: 2629: 202:

I don't think we ever use categories of Pre-1 AD format. If I'm right, we should have a

2650: 2379: 2157: 2131: 1956: 1944: 1872: 1641: 746: 2196:

proposed merge is the only way to clearly show to everyone that cleanup is necessary.

3044: 2859: 2605: 2070:

I would favor moving these to the talk pages if any WikiProjects find these helpful.

1626:

should be restored as a category in its own right (i.e. not a 'Container Category'),

467: 2841:

too small and we don't appear to categorize poets this way (wisely, in my opinion).

972:

wouldn't categorize articles about sportspeople based on those characteristics. The

1422: 973: 1336:(unless he's also notable as a Welsh-language poet, Welsh-language activist etc). 699:

WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 4#Category:Cornish-speaking people

697:(closed as containerize, but reopened as part of the Scottish Gaelic discussion); 2875:

as a small triple intersection. the one article is similarly the only member of

2842: 2452: 2397: 2177: 2011: 1676: 1666: 1419:

Speaking a minority language should never be trivialised in such a flippant way!

1404: 1372: 1338: 1058: 997: 986: 930: 858: 817: 711: 3022: 2685: 2553: 1001: 695:

WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 August 24#Category:Welsh-speaking people

1709:

categories of this sort should also be moved to match the standard "Category:

744:. Firstly, I would like to ask @DexDor: what do you mean by "<Fooish: --> 2736: